The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to Connecticut International Baccalaureate Academy. Non admin closure. ascidian | talk-to-me 14:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut International Baccaulerate Academy[edit]

Connecticut International Baccaulerate Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Misspelling and duplicate of existing article See Connecticut International Baccalaureate Academy. Most of the relevant material is in the correctly spelled article. Two tiny exceptions - the reference to the bridge and the reference to the three programs. I could not find RS for either; if someone can, and finds the information relevant, it could be added to Connecticut International Baccalaureate Academy--SPhilbrickT 01:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rough consensus favors deletion, and their arguments seem to outweigh the reasons for retention. –MuZemike 06:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J.A.I.L. 4 Judges[edit]

J.A.I.L. 4 Judges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a big giant op-ed piece on a non-notable organization that grossly violates the no original research policy. Moreover, the organization's web site listed at the bottom of the article redirects to a Network Solutions page. Further, the citations from reliable sources (e.g. The New York Times, CBS 2 Chicago, Northwestern University School of Law) don't even mention the organization described by the article while the link to the Fresno Bee citation doesn't even work. At best, two paragraphs consisting of 10% of this 10,000-byte op-ed could be salvaged for an article called South Dakota Amendment E (2006), which 89% of the South Dakota electorate voted against (the article itself admits that this hasn't even had sufficient signatures to appear on any other state's ballot). OCNative (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is a mess, and the suggested move to South Dakota Amendment E (2006) may be appropriate. Deletion, however, is not. Once notable, always notable, and the group (or at least the amendment) was arguably notable in 2006, based on this National Public Radio story (inexplicably listed under "External links" rather than References) and this coverage in Dakota Voice. The New York Times in this editorial called the amendment the "wackiest and potentially most far-reaching of the judge-bashing schemes", and this Google News archive search shows further coverage of the organization's activities. Amendment E was clearly a bad idea, but I think that it and the organizations that supported it are both notable on the basis of the media coverage at the time. I would argue that any citizen initiative that makes it to the ballot is notable, although the less controversial ones could be included in the article on the election which included them. — Eastmain (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It should be noted (in terms of assessing notability) that many of sources noted aren't about the group J.A.I.L. or Jail 4 Judges or whatever it's supposed to be called, but about the initiatives; as this article is supposedly about the group, that makes it a different category (he says, starting to rethink his Mild Keep). (And to explic the "inexplicable", the reason those things weren't in "References" is that there wasn't a reference list on this article until yesterday, when I did a little cleaning up converting inline direct links to more appropriate references. It was only in doing so that I saw what a mess it all was.) - Nat Gertler (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild keep delete - the group has gotten enough coverage elsewhere that it does have a valid place in wikipedialand. However, this article is a mess. I've cleaned up some of the formatting, but it is heavily underreferenced, reads like a personal essay in many points, has rather blatant POV slants being added to it even now (I just saw a new edit that seems to make it a goal to prosecute judges for mere controversy in their rulings), and there's been some major WP:COI involved; the webmaster of the group has edited repeatedly, the page was founded by someone who was later bounced for making death threats against a user, and appears to have been material taken from the group's website. It really needs some editor with time and willingness to strip it down severely, and leave an objective and direct short piece. This is not an organization that has had a substantial effect; it's a history of failure with no lasting impact, and thus doesn't need much depth. - Nat Gertler (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Added later: their lack of impact does cause notability concerns; the coverage is more about the amendment than the group. Their lack of impact fails to give a sense that this is merely an unfortunate overlook in coverage. - Nat Gertler (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. J.A.I.L. 4 Judges itself is not notable. The 2006 Amendment E race may be notable and worth an article. This article is a mess, full of original research, non-reliable sources, POV, and a conflict of interest. --Weazie (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but gut and completely rewrite. I would argue that any grassroots movement able to raise as big a stink as this organization did should be considered notable, but I would not object to a move to South Dakota Amendment E (2006) in the alternative. Groupthink (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's relevent information and such information is likely be of interest of people. --Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd ^Talk 00:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That it could be of interest to some people is not a good reason to keep. There are tons of things that could be of interest to people that don't belong in this encyclopedia... Spiesr (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is basically a long essay in favor of the ideas of the group, which seems to have little notability in itself. The article may qualify as a WP:coatrack, "a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats"." --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

  Comment. The current state of the article is not germane to the question of whether or not it should be deleted. The thing to consider is not "Is this article broken?" but "Is this article fixable?" Groupthink (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and start over The material here is too biased to be kept, even in the history. It could only be fixed by rewriting from scratch. There is one adequate source for a article titled this way, not under the name of the amendment, the ABA one. [1] DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The material can be rewritten from scratch without resorting to deletion, and it should be kept in the history as a referencable record of what doesn't belong in the article. Groupthink (talk) 07:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SilkTork *^YES! 02:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got Grip?[edit]

Got Grip? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Film does not meet WP:NF. No (reliable) sources found. Prod tag removed by article's creator. No additional info added before or after removal of the PROD tag. Jarkeld (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, as per speedy deletion criteria G11 and A7. OCNative (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet notability guidelines and is, as far as I can tell, unverifiable. Can see nothing significant in google or google news.--BelovedFreak 22:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Does not even claim notability, much less demonstrate it. It's basically just talking about a bunch of kids who filmed themselves skateboarding. --MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
• Speedy delete under A7. Doesn't seem to indicate notability in any way. Cocytus [»talk«] 20:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melatonin Magik[edit]

Melatonin Magik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Non-notable future album per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS. References are currently a social networking site, blog and press release. Steamroller Assault (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. RP459 (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 23:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NALBUMS: "unreleased albums are in general not notable" but may be "if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources"; this album does not. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the sources are from reliable official press releases and confirmed Hip Hop articles published online, and the record label War Lab confirms this release. MarioVega0 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to be legit. A quick google search turns up tons of underground hiphop sites and official press releases on it. Zodiiak (talk) 08:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verifiability, while indeed an issue is not the heart of the matter here. The main issue is if it has received significant independent coverage in reliable sources, which means it needs to be more in-depth than "Canibus is working on a new album to be called Melatonin Magik." If you have found coverage of substance in a reliable source (i.e. not a blog or press release), please update the article or at least post the link here so someone else can. TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nobody is questioning if the album is scheduled to be released or not. But there is a definate lack significant coverage by reliable, third party sources (and no, hip-hopkings.com is not a reliable source). No confirmed track list. As such, it fails WP:ALBUMS, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 03:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Aldred[edit]

Robert Aldred (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded, this long dead person is not notable. As near as I can tell from the article, the links given in the article, and my own internet searches, he was a Jesuit priest(?) who lived, built a house, and died. That is all. Abductive (reasoning) 23:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Canterbury Tail talk 23:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom individual fails WP:NOTABILITY RP459 (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. OCNative (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 03:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Hayze[edit]

Frankie Hayze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician. Please note that both references used to substantiate notability (a) lead to nowhere, and (b) don't seem to be about the same subject as indicated in their URLs. An actual search for "Frankie Hayze" on Billboard reveals nothing. Also note that User: Yunglilhaze is recovering from a block, during which he was informed of many Wikipedia policies. It now seems he is attempting an end-run around those policies for the recreation of this page. Steamroller Assault (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Sources don't lead anywhere, nn.  fetchcomms☛ 23:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:Notability & WP:BIO nothing notable period about this person. RP459 (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 23:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt, fake sources, self-promotion, non-notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not finding anything, either, to indicate this person meets WP:MUSICBIO.  Gongshow ^Talk 07:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO. Cocytus [»talk«] 20:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Totally fails WP:MUSICBIO. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jean de Mailly[edit]

Jean de Mailly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also nominating:

• Jean D'Mailly
• Peter D'Mailly,Barn Conti
• Madeleine de Maillé

Note: This article is now being redirected to Jean V de Mailly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nobility is not notability. Notability is not inherited. No references. Reywas92^Talk 18:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Nobility sometimes makes one notable as a member of a national parliament. An English baron from that period would be automatically notable as a member of the House of Lords. Did being baron de Conti automatically make him a member of France's Parliament? - Eastmain (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then the notability is from the membership, not the nobility. Don't ask me; the article doesn't say. No notability is established. Reywas92^Talk 23:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, being a baron in France did not automatically make him a parlementaire héréditaire, a privilege only accorded to those who were recognized by the Crown as hereditary members of the Parlement de Paris -- most, but not all, dukes. But that can't be the criterion since it is entirely Brit-centric: the Maillys were influential and well-known nobles in French history without being peers, the individuals' notability deriving substantially from their membership in that prominent family. Rather, this article and its relatives deserves to be deleted because it is vandalism by virtue of being mostly fabrication: "Jean V de Mailly" died young and childless. The references to his spouse and descendants, e.g. 'Marquisa Renee Delapommellaire, Louis Wallerund du Bois, Jacquin d'Neville, Peter de Mailly, Casper Mabille', etc are fictitious -- and where they are not fake, most of the details given of their lives and filiations is fake. Like a proliferating class of Wiki articles, this one appears made up to support a fantasized noble origin for someone, whose surname is (I'll wager) "Mabee" or the like ("Mailly" presumably being the nearest-sounding name the vandal could discover to that of an aristocratic family). It should be deleted because it is largely bogus as well as non-notable (the subject having died too young to live up to his family's reputation -- for instance, by reproducing heirs who held the same high status at the French court), and without reference to the debatable claim that "Notability is not inherited" -- in which I cannot concur. FactStraight (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.
• Comment Certainly seeing a lot at books, but some could be about different people than the subject of this article. Merits further research, but the article itself is not in great shape at the moment. Cirt (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 1)This individual was not notable, having died around 1528 at the age of 16. 2)The reference Dragoon1988 posted earlier stated that Jean d'Mailly died sans posterite(without issue), which he speedily deleted[2] after I had pointed out it contradicts the fictional history he is creating. Peter d'Mailly, another article without ANY references, is most likely a fake individual considering that Jean d'Mailly had NO children AND the House of Bourbon-Conde was in possession of the title "Conti" through Eléanor de Roucy de Roye.
• The bigger picture is Dragoon1988's attempt to invent a fictitious genealogy using a fake mistress of Louis XI[3],[4],[5], unsupported by any references.
• Also please note that Demailly 1986[6] is most likely a sock of Dragoon1988, and is being used to create more fictitious genealogies. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Jean D'Mailly for now, but excise the hoax.
  • Delete Peter D'Mailly,Barn Conti as a hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteMadeleine de Maillé as hoax, now that it's been added to the Afd. Edward321 (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Jean D'Mailly, died without issue and virtually nothing is written about him, except in fictional genealogies.
  • Delete Peter D'Mailly, most likely a fictional person that supposedly inherits a title from a person that had no children!
  • Delete Madeleine d'Maille, unless this article can be supported by reliable 3rd party sources, I see no reasonable notability. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 22:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for spurious history.Red Hurley (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 03:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Heloísa Aalling[edit]

Maria Heloísa Aalling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Concerns have been raised about notability. Personally I thought the fact that she is a professional model and is listed under the fashion model directory, and has featured in notable magazines and modelled for notable fashion companies/adverts in her own country I thought this met the professional requirements... I wasn't aware they had to have modelled in Paris to be notable, although it seems this model has modelled for NEXT and has appeared in fashion in Paris, New York City and Sao Paulo..... As fashion is not exactly a subject I know much about perhaps the community could shed any light on whether this article is acceptale or not. Thanks. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I believe that the article would have to show notability above and beyond being listed in a 'model directory'. I think she still would have to be documented by a reliable source as having been reported for something more than just doing a typical run of standard commercial modeling (though obviously a very successful run). Scott P. (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete complete lack of reliable sources. nothing in gnews for long name [7]. one hit without middle name. [8]. LibStar (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as NN per my original prod. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 03:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Galleguillos[edit]

Leo Galleguillos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article lacks reliable sources verifying this person's notability, and I wasn't able to find such sources with a Google News source. Prod removed by creator without the addition of reliable sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Delete. (See rationale for vote change below.) I found this- an Opentopia.com bio on him. He appears to be the owner of WorkSessions, a sort of competitor to Napster. It took me a while to pull this up, but the info is there. I'm going to put this link to the bio info in the article. Scott P. (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That looks like a Wikipedia mirror site and therefore not a reliable source. It may be a copy of a previous version of the article, as it has been deleted before [9]. Cassandra 73 (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• After taking a closer look, they got me. Looks like probably only one or two individuals have been promoting the Galleguillos Wikipedia article and the Opentopia writeup, which has much of the same wording, though sequenced slightly differently. Thanks. Scott P. (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleteas non-notable. Unverified, unsourced. A Google search turns up only websites, facebook, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
• Actually, from what I can tell, WorkSessions deals with music but does not compete with Napster. This might be better for the WorkSessions page rather than this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TribalElliot (talk • contribs) 14:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No reliable sources for the material found; a few local mentions of a homework help site. Nothing to support the rest of the self-promotional bio; parts of which are clearly imanginary. "nearly forced to declare personal bankruptcy", at the age of 14 or 15? Nothing comes up on his other stuff except for what appears to be dedicated SEO. Kuru (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note the article creator has attempted to remove !votes and alter others here. Kuru (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. One of the sillier bio's I've read. I love that the infobox show his salary as less than 578,000 and net worth is less than 2.6 million. So is 99.8% of the US. What the hell is that supposed to tell us? Fails WP:BIO. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 03:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Times obituary of Adam Smith[edit]

Times obituary of Adam Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about an obituary is not notable. It has no significant coverage or sources because it is itself a source. It would be a ridiculous precedent to maintain articles of obituaries in an encyclopedia. The text of the document is already at Wikisource -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a primary source, no secondary sources analyze it. Abductive (reasoning) 23:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as a primary source (and I would expect in the public domain) the document itself (if not already) could be posted online and linked to Adam Smith. Northwestgnome (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it's already in Wikisource. An opinion with the link such as, "Very interesting", to direct readers to it would probably be forgiven or overlooked by WP strictness police. Northwestgnome (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we soft redirect to Wikisource, as we do to Wiktionary? That might be in order, here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in favor of Wikisource version. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as commentary, this is original research. Bearian (talk) 05:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this reads as one person's personal research/reflections on the obituary. As such, it doesn't strike me as encyclopedic or meeting the notability guidelines. Since the document itself is already on Wikisource, I'd say a deletion here is fair enough. Cocytus [»talk«] 20:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. For all the good reasons already stated. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joachim Cronman[edit]

Joachim Cronman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article did nothing to warrant an article. Being a colonel and having gotten killed before a war officially began is not significant enough. Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: User:Gerbelzodude99 has now been indef-blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Torkmann. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All three nominations were by the same person, who is now banned from Wikipedia for the three nominations, each as a sockpuppet, and other disruptive AFDs. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW, this is the 4th RFD for this article, and it's unlikely that it will be resolved any differently from the other three. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think enough time has passed. Thank you, and I did my research on this one. Let's stop using SNOW to stop all discussion and see how this plays out. Merry Christmas! Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep For other disruptive nominations of my articles by Gerbelzodude99 see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Charles Johnston and ‎Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loew's Cemetery and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eversharp. I think he is lashing out because I caught him commenting at an AFD without actually looking at the article. If he had read the article, at ‎Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loew's Cemetery he would noticed that the New York Times was not the sole reference in the article, instead he repeated the error of the previous voters stating that it was. See here where he says "I have a feeling the author of this (and other New York Times-based articles) sits in a room full of century-old pulp newspapers and sketches out stub articles based on the contents thereof. I don't know if this is politically correct, but perhaps the author of these stubs suffers from autism or Asperger syndrome? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh... I'm really concerned that this article is going to be a permanent keep merely because it keeps getting nominated by people with a record of frivolous AfD-nominations. I just want to stress that although it has the superficial look and feel of a being about a relevant encyclopedic topic, the image pretty much falls apart upon any closer inspection of the references. The major problem is that none have any trace of synthesis, analysis or secondary treatment beyond mere summaries of primary sources, and certainly anything that confirms genuine notability. The lack of descriptions of anything remotely interesting beyond a slavish listing of offspring, relatives and military assignments just doesn't strike me as being relevant Wikipedia content. Peter ^Isotalo 22:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else have a sneaking suspicion that User:Drawn Some and User:Gerbelzodude99 and User:Torkmann are the same person. Of all the articles in Wikipedia and of all the articles I started, why would three people be drawn to this same article over and over? All three accounts exist only to nominate articles for deletion, and all three concentrate on articles that I write. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't understand: 1. Why someone would want to write an article on this person, 2. Why someone would bother to nominate it for deletion. However since he seems to have been fairly important and documented in published, reliable sources we might as well keep him. Northwestgnome (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is impeccably sourced to many reliable sources, thus meeting WP:V. WP:N is certainly met given the coverage of this subject in reliable sources, and being a high-level officer who commanded a military installation of some importance is certainly a credible claim to notability. Although this was a bad-faith nomination, I don't think the AfD meets any of the criteria at WP:SK. That said, this discussion is somewhat premature; the third AfD was closed as "no consensus" under two months ago, and the second AfD was closed the same way one month before that. During that time, there have not been major changes to the article, so I think it's unreasonable to expect a consensus to emerge this time around. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep another bad faith nom. There is one delete !vote by a non-banned user, otherwise I'd request somebody to close as speedy keep. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 13:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Really?! Another AFD, just delete it. I have yet to see anything that would make this dude pass WP:GNG TheWeakWilled (T * G) 13:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same person nominating under different names each time to be disruptive. And, btw, he meets every requirement of WP:GNG. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I see is trivial coverage, nothing significant. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If fulfills all requirements except the first one, significant coverage, which is the only one that really matters in terms of notability. The rest is just more specific application of WP:N. None of those sources describe Cronman in any detail. Compare with the example given in the note at WP:GNG, and keep in mind that it's referring to something as minor as a news article. Cronman gets roughly the same amount of textual coverage in considerably longer academic articles and full-length books. Peter ^Isotalo 18:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10 facts from 10 sources is the exact same depth of coverage as 10 facts from 1 source. Mathematically there is no difference. He appears in Finnish history books, English history books, and Swedish and German books. While other people in Wikipedia will have 100 facts and others 1,000 and 10,000 facts known about them, he meets Wikipedia's requirement for an entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not conferred by "being in books". That's what the "Three Blind Mice"-example is trying to say. It would qualify millions of living and deceased ppl, and untold numbers of installations, objects, groupings, phrases and whathaveyou, for their own perpetually stubby articles. We're talking about stuff that would probably make even staunch inclusionists suspicious. If you want this to actually be about following guidleines I suggest lobbying for a change of the wording in WP:GNG. Peter ^Isotalo 21:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• By all means, delete! Stop being paranoid, Richard. Also stop making accusations with NO proof. The article keeps getting nominated for deletion because the article needs to go, bro. Mr. Richard, stop being a WP:DICK about it. Torkmann (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE User:Torkmann has been indef-blocked for abusively used one or more accounts. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again using math: The odds of three random people nominating the same random article is 3 million cubed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I started a SPI [here because of some weird similarities between three users that have nominated this article for deletion. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The sock allegations above are irrelevant. This article is problematic because the subject is not notable in the general sense. This would all seem to be about a pattern of article creation to lower the bar of inclusion in the direction of "every person who ever lived". Jack Merridew 18:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you can come up with 16 references for each person on Earth, I don't have any in GNews or GBooks. You might get one fact from a telephone book, or 5 facts from a person in a funeral notice, but they would not have a claim to notability. 16 references for someone from 300 years ago is pretty well referenced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. 4 AFDs in just over 90 days is ridiculous and disruptive; no reasons for deletion soundly based in policy; and peculiar indicators of hounding an editor. We should have better things to do. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep and mark the sock puppet AFDs on this article. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drawn Some

• Keep on the merits. Commander of an important military base. Keep also on the grounds that 2 previous attempts have found no consensus to delete, and an earlier delete decision was reversed at deletion review. I think it is finally cleafr enough that there is no sufficient consensus to delete the article nor is there likely to be, so keep is the way to settle this. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Riga is the "important military base" in this context. Dünamünde was an outlying fortification which no one has been able to secure much info on. If you want to extend notability from minor military installations to all of its commanders, regardless of their achievments, than at least stick to that argument instead of inflating the importance of minor details. Peter ^Isotalo 21:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said important; Riga was no doubt more important, but notability does not limit itself to that. I think the key thing we look for is in fact an independent command substantial enough to be of some historical note. Anyway, another ed. seems to have mentioned just below the article on the place, which perhaps justifies "very important" --and I see the Latvian Wikipedia article is 3 times larger still, and the Polish & Russian yet longer. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daugavgrīva

• Keep. Knock it off. A 4th AfD nomination by an account suspected by sock puppetry by itself points toward a keep vote. However, sticking purely to the merits of the article, a commander of a major fort is also notable in his own right, as forts were mostly operated as tactically independent units in this eta. Tomas e (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has been banned from Wikipedia for this nomination and other disruptive nominations. All the past three nominations for deletion have been from the same person using sock accounts. The first nomination was closed by the administrator using a Wikipedia:supervote to negate the two keep votes. Lets have a contest to see who is the first to detect what account name he creates and starts his disruptive edits with next. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep of bad faith nomination by a now indef-blocked sock of an indef-blocked user... in a total abuse of process and guideline. His thumbing his nose at the processes set in place by the community aside, the article is well-sourced and meets precedent and guideline for such historical articles, and notability outside the United States is notability none-the-less. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I can't see what harm this article does and it has been carefully researched. But it gives no indication that he did anything notable at all - and it would be nice to know why on earth he is worth an article. NBeale (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per my prior votes.--Milowent (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The bad-faith nomination makes this a speedy keep, and I ask an uninvolved admin to close it as such since no new arguments for deletion have been brought forward. That being said, I stand by my delete from the last two AfDs – nothing has changed, as far as I can tell, and neither has my opinion. Amalthea 19:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree. Time to close. --IP69.226.103.13 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IP69.226.103.13 (talk • contribs)

• Speedy Keep Bad faith repeat nomination by blocked sockpuppet of blocked user. Edward321 (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 03:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ERacks[edit]

ERacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Supplier of computer systems. Are they really notable? Sgroupace (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, also unambiguous advertising: eRacks has given back to the community, both by offering an easy means of donating to open source projects and by donating hardware to organizations in need.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No outside confirmation of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
• Delete Nothing notable here. Miami33139 (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –MuZemike 06:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Three[edit]

Silent Three (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are very thin on the ground here. Not at all sure about notability, but as I know very little about this subject I thought that I'd bring it here to se what you people think. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Move. (See rationale for vote change below.) Unable to find any references. Scott P. (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I clicked on the Google Books link above and immediately found what appears to be a chapter on them in a book [10] which is a good start and that was just the work of moments. (Emperor (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
• CSD as patent nonsense. --EEMIV (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did speedy it but then changed my mind and brought it here because of the comment on the talk page (which I urge everyone to read). Theresa Knott | token threats 09:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this article has been vandalised a number of times and I have restored the version to the way it was before this took place - it is unwise to base an AfD on an article that has been deliberately made into a mess. (Emperor (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep as this BBC documentary explains "School Friend refreshed the traditions of boarding school tales in girls' story papers and ushered in a new era of comics for girls. The million-selling first issue cover, which was illustrated by Evelyn Flinders, featured The Silent Three at St Kit's, sleuthing in their capes and cowls." Sharksaredangerous (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I decided to change my recommendation from delete to move for the following reasons: The un-repaired vandalism was somewhat misleading. Before the vandalism repairs, the idea of "crime solving assassins" just seemed a bit too wacky for me! I'm glad someone fixed this. After doing a bit of Googling, it seems that a search for the terms: "school friend" comics turns up 66,000 apparently very relevent hits. A Google search for the terms: "silent three" joan peggy betty turns up only 73 hits. I suggest renaming the article to the more widely known name: "School Friend (comic book series)" and fleshing it out with both some info regarding the comic book series and the info regarding the Silent Three. (Note: It turns out that there is already an article in Wikipedia called School Friends (novel series). This article is about an apparently unrelated novel series currently being written and published.).Scott P. (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth noting that the proposed disambiguation isn't appropriate, following WP:NCC. The right location would be School Friend (comics). It is an option I'd certainly favour - with comics anthologies it is going to be easier to prove notability for the comic than it would for individual stories (I was surprised someone had started an article on the story and not the title), so a move could lead to a more rounded article and if the section on the Silent Three was to get a lot more sources we could then look at splitting it off into its own article but, for now a move looks like the best idea. (Emperor (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
• Move to School Friend (comics), following my reasoning above. (Emperor (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep and rename and rewrite, per Sharksaredangerous, Scottperry, and Emperor. The magazine appears to be a notable topic after all. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dougie Swallow[edit]

Dougie Swallow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Singularity42 (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesnt fail WP:NOTABILITY though. 82.132.139.13 (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENTERTAINER is a guideline of how WP:NOTABILITY applies to entertainers. Yes, it is possible to met the general notability guidelines without meeting the entertainer guideline, but it exceedingly rare. How does the article's subject meet the notability guidelines? Singularity42 (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has been on television with his act a number of times now, he's rather well known throughout the United Kingdom for his act and now works on the new Richard and Judy show searching for new talent. Rather than proposing it for deletion straight after the page is created, how about waiting a few minutes until references have been added for it. If you have a problem with how it it layed out, why not be bold and change the layout to fit more as an entertainer. Thanks for your comment. 82.132.139.13 (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to always assume good faith. I did do a Google search for this person. I found some YouTube videos and some Facebook postings. Neither are reliable sources to support notability. I'm not sure where you are coming from saying that I am opposed to the layout of the of article. All I am saying is that he does not meet the notability guidelines for entertainers. Appearing on television is not in and of itself automatic notability. There should generally be coverage of the subject by multiple, independent mainstream media. So far, I can't find any, and the burden is on the person proposing the article. Singularity42 (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the performer in question, I found that two friends created this page without my knowledge, I was indeed as referenced by Youtube on Britains got Talent, and Richard and Judy's New Position, I agree with a comment that just auditioning is not notable, however I was asked to return and featured on another program (R&J). How about to retain the article we mention more about my other skills such as web development and my websites? --Andrewds (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Auditioning for a talent show is not notable. And speaking as someone who's in the United Kingdom - I've seen no evidence he is "rather well known" (as stated above) or "famously known" (as stated in the article). I42 (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument for whether he is rather well known or famously known, is simply original research. There are a number of people who have an article on this website who I have never heard of? Does that mean their page should be deleted? No. I am getting suitable references for the article. 82.132.139.13 (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely your assertion that he is notable is the original research? I am merely disputing that. I42 (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I have sources for them, I'm just rewriting the article at the moment in order to try to make it flow better and make it more obvious that he is notable. Doesn't help when I'm on here trying to save it from being deleted when people don't give editors a chance to get their sources all together.82.132.139.13 (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) WP:BURDEN lies with the editor that adds or restores material. Therefore, in this case, it lies with the editor(s) who have created the article. 2) There's no rush. This discussion will last a minimum of seven days. Plenty of time to add the references. Singularity42 (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ive heard of this Dougie person one of my favorite impersonators and not sure where you live but he is very well heard of in the Derbyshire/south yorkshire area of the uk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leedsalex23 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you created the article on the person. I would hope you have heard of the person before you created the article... Unfortunately, you saying he is well known is your own opinion. What you need to do is show us some reliable sources that indicate that he is well known. Singularity42 (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ive also heard of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leedsalex6 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC) This user is an admitted sock of Leedsalex23, who !voted keep above. Singularity42 (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As one of the comments above says, simply auditioning for the X Factor is not notable enough. If that was the case, we would have to let pages exist for everyone who had applied to be on a talent show! I was holding off nominating this article for deletion so I could look into this and find any reliable sources to support this person, but all I can find is a few YouTube videos which can't be counted as reliable sources. In case it's of any interest, I too speak from the UK but I can't recall ever seeing or hearing of this person before --5 albert square (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't just been on a talent show though. He was invited back for a special, and was also invited onto Richard an Judy's TV show. He now works for them following that, and is entering Celebrity Big Brother next year. Your views are misguided and incorrect.

• Delete this unnotable performer. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Delete comments clearly do not take WP:POTENTIAL into account. 82.132.139.65 (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:POTENTIAL is an essay (rather than a policy), which refers to the potential of articles. It does not refer to the potential of people to meet the general notability guidelines, and does not supercede that policy. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, what part of WP:POTENTIAL#Ways to spot article potential does this even meet? Singularity42 (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Points 1 and 4. Thanks for your comment.82.132.139.65 (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:POTENTIAL is an essay an does not supercede the general notability guideline. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has context - but not context that could demonstrate notability. Yes, it cites a secondary source, but not a secondary source that could demonstrate notability. As Dylanfromthenorth indicates, WP:NOTABILITY is policy. WP:POTENTIAL is an essay that reflects the views of some editors, and must fall within policy. So the question is: does this article have potential to demonstrate notability? The answer is a resounding no. Singularity42 (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. 82.132.139.130 (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this performer is absolutly unnotable, and in my opinion also fails potential criteria. Needs to be deleted immedeately. benedikt.achatz (talk) — benedikt.achatz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Well considering how you are a member of a website which doesn't even like him, your views are completely irrelevant and completely biased. 82.132.139.130 (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benedikt is a friend of someone who I dislike, and that person in question probably asked him to write that comment. This comment is personal hate and should not be classed as a reason to delete this page. --Andrewds (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Might be notable one day, but isn't there yet. Fails WP:ENT as far as I can see. And I see trying to shoehorn him in under GNG as an endrun around the fact that he really isn't notable as an entertainer. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that all the people voting delete are all sockpuppets of eachother, so at this moment in time this debate (and article) needs to remain until a sockpuppetry investigation has taken place. Clearly the fact that they all mention he is unnotable and many of the users mention assuming good faith is enough evidence to suggest they are linked in some way. They use the same style of language too. I challenge all of you who have voted delete to provide reliable sources to prove you are not sock puppets. Thanks. 82.132.248.16 (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are more than welcome to open a sockpuppetry investigation. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural delete to allow Rotorua Regional Airport article to be moved to the new title. Mjroots (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rotorua International Airport[edit]

Rotorua International Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No airport by this name; a new user just created this page, and simply copied all content from Rotorua Regional Airport Jasepl (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep / Rename / Redirect the Airport became International on 12-Dec-2009 - source http://www.rdc.govt.nz/Services/Airport.aspx Annette46 (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Rename the Regional Airport article as International and have redirect from Regional (hope this makes sense). Better to keep the edit history of the original Regional article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete duplicate article, then rename Rotorua Regional Airport to Rotorua International Airport per RDC link above. Looks like a copy-paste move (WP:CUTPASTE). XLerate (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Just because it started getting international flights, doesn't mean its name changed. The airport continues to call itself Rotorua Regional Airport, as is evidenced here. Jasepl (talk) 06:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The airport website doesn't appear to have been updated yet (last news item is from almost 5 months ago). Stuff.co.nz has a December article which says - "the newly branded Rotorua International Airport". XLerate (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted. TNXMan 17:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Industries (UK)[edit]

Tokyo Industries (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nightclub which doesn't appear to be particularly notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP (though I'm not sure if CORP applies). Article's creator is named User:Tokyoindustries, so there's probably a conflict of interest going on too. Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - A7. Singularity42 (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - As per above A7 with also a note about it being an unsourced article, and very difficult to verify as they seem to have almost no third party coverage. Mkdw^talk 22:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - Meets criteria for A7 and G11. Created by User:Tokyoindustries, so obvious advertising. Wexcan  Talk  17:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Consensus seems to be leaning towards Speedy Delete. WP:A7 notice in place on article, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Siberian American Aborigines[edit]

Pre-Siberian American Aborigines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Improve or delete The lack of proper references, and the controversy of this subject, suggest this article is little more than WP:POV speculation. It should be sorted out or deleted, especially as it has significant potential impacts on a whole swathe of racial, land rights, religious, scientific and other issues. Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe keep It certainly is an important topic, whatever the facts turn out to be. The article is no worse more poorly sourced and written than many on WP. Is there another one on early American pre-history where it can be merged? Northwestgnome (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless something more substantial than a few costumes and a few random irregularities in tested theories show up. This looks like pure speculation of the "grasp all the odd things and try to create a link" school. It offers no evidence of how these proto-Australoids would travel 10,000 miles, and be found all across the Americas, but leave nothing but a couple of costumes, and a couple of canoes, either of which could more easily be explained by parallel development--if one group came up with it, another could, and usually have--and then lose all knowledge of craft of that quality, and not leave evidence all over the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Are there any peer reviewed papers? And how was the reception among specialists in the various fields? DNA groups? Various other technologies? I'd say it needs real sourcing and a complete rewrite if there is any credible evidence, or deletedMzmadmike (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteOriginal research. There are no Google Scholar sources using this phrase so not even a useful redirect. There is one Google Book source, published by Alphascript -- but all that they publish is reprints from Wikipedia (their statement) although their home page says "one of the leading publishing houses of academic research". Any useful content can be redistributed, see Talk:Pre-Siberian American Aborigines#Reads Like Original Research To Me. Dougweller (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Fix it or delete - this is more of a synthesis situation than original research, because there are some citations and a considerable biography. Bearian (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete article: Article must be fixed and sources put in . Although some will find the theory controversial, it has not come out of the blue : Some of the scientific theories were raised by serious Brazilian Scientists involved with studies in the Northeast region of that country. Therefore deleting the article could only show that some user's are using the deletion very quickly when they are not open to discuss scientific theories which contradict the "establishment " . It is too early to come up with the idea of deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.226.31 (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2009

DeleteThis article appears to be a synthesis of multiple sources, it's not cogently put together and is written from the authors POV. I would say fix it, but I don't think it can be fixed until more published sources that specifically spell out the hypothesis, come to light. Until then you could add as many sources as you want and it would only become well sourced synthesis. BrendanFrye (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –MuZemike 06:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OggConvert[edit]

OggConvert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In the previous AfD, two of the three people who voted for delete are currently involved in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence. After I closed it, Pohta ce-am pohtit pointed this out to me, so I have decided to rerun this AfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this seems to be a genuine Open Source software project available in many language options. Its also positively reviewed, recommended and linked to from many linux distro websites. http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/123574 Annette46 (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find more online reviews? Samboy (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YES. Satisfied users[11] and [12] and reccos [13], [14]. Apparently in the linux world it is one of the few converters to do Matroska <--> Dirac conversions [15] Annette46 (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep or merge to GStreamer. It's true that it has one fairly long review, which was ignored in the previous AfD, but that's about it. It's not mentioned at all in any books. From the linux.com review I gather it's just a front-end for GStreamer, so a merge there should make sense. Pcap ping 00:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. The policy for keeping a software program’s article in the Wiki is multiple third-party independent notable sources. So far, we have found only one. Books and Scholar searches on Google have zero hits. Samboy (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not exactly the policy (actually it's a guideline). The wording is "Multiple sources are generally preferred", and there are some footnotes explaning that it's acceptable to write from a single secondary source as long there's enough depth, and NPOV can be observed, but also that the "lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic". So, either outcome could reasonably be decided for this article. Pcap ping 19:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the things I really would like to see is to have WP:Notability (software) be an article that reflects consensus of Wikipedia editors; I’ve already worked on the article to get rid of ideas which don’t seem to reflect consensus like trying to make magazine reviews forbidden when deciding whether to keep an article. Samboy (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, still. This still fails notability guidelines. We still are an encyclopedia and not a software directory. Is there evidence of any other non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications, aside from linux.com? JBsupreme (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep The linux.com article is a fine enough source for this stub. I don't think it should be merged to gstreamer. Just because it uses gstreamer as a backend doesn't mean that it belongs there in the absence of a stand-alone article. --Karnesky (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Pcap. This is written from a neutral point of view, and even though there's only one third-party source, it's in-depth coverage so I believe WP:N is met. I would support a merger, but as Karnesky points out, there doesn't appear to be a suitable target article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 03:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overdose (software)[edit]

Overdose (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The main project site appears to be fragmentary, and only written for perhaps a small group of friends. Search results on Google for the terms, '"overdose software" yahoo chat client' yielded only 19 results. Clearly not widely known. This article has had no real updates for over a year, except for vandalism and vandalism repair. Scott P. (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems even less notable than the discontinued YCHT protocol itself. Zero secondary sources that aren't just software catalogs. No historical significance. Pcap ping 03:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete'. Not yet notable at this time. Perhaps one day it will receive non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. Perhaps. JBsupreme (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing notable here. Miami33139 (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Angel and the Rain[edit]

The Angel and the Rain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable album. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. "Reviews" added appear to be user reviews and from primarily non-reliable sources, per WP:RS. Only one even says more than a few lines about the album. Was redirected to the artist page per WP:MUSIC, but article creator disputed without discussion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect Keep. (see reason for change below.) Agreed, per the Wikipedia WP:MUSIC policy, this article makes no attempt to document, via unbiased third party established music reviewers or sources, that the album is notable. Until notability can be properly established and documented in this manner, it can only have a redirect to its artist. Wikipedia is not meant to be an advertising site. Scott P. (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 19:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Stop!!! this platform is an english language Encyclopedia not only United Kingdom, many other people from the world are here readers, the album is narrated by few magazines in the world (orkus, Hard Rock, Zillo, Metal Hammer etc.)! the album is big rated in the USA, who had this english wikipedia platform many readers! a many people to get his information from here, therefore is the article right, he must only expanded! --  (User talk:Zombie433 · 23:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Zombie433. After following through with User:Zombie433's suggestions, I started by finding more established reviews at the first two searches I did at, BellaOnline and RockEyez.com. I've put these review links into the article. Next time I'll do more of my homework first. The original AfD nominator was correct regarding the poor quality of the original sole review that was in the article, however further searching seems to show that reliable reviews do exist. Scott P. (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of those actually reliable sources? BellaOnline looks like a low-end About.com type copy, with all editors being "ordinary men and women" and not actual music critics, with little editorial control or vesting of contributors beyond making sure you don't plagiarize and will churn out articles every week. Rockeyez looks like someone's self-published personal site, and again not an actual reliable sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Band and the album is also listed by MTV and the music videos runs at Night on the Programm of this Television, the band pio can find here: The LoveCrave - Bio at the German MTV site and its English translation, many other band articles who is here rated can i not find on several pages or in this MTV database. The band played since 2007 every year at Camden Underworld in London, according to this had the band a big fanbase in the UK and the fans will read here by wikipedia over his loved band and this album. (Zombie 433 talk) 00:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So? Being aired on MTV German does not make it notable. Many music videos air on music channels. Again, like all topics, it needs SIGNIFICANT coverage in reliable, third-party sources and the claimed size of a fanbase is irrelevant. Without actual coverage, it isn't verifiable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep bellaonline is actually worse than about.com, since the latter employs some working journalists in a few categories, whereas the former actively discourages them. But laut.de and zvuki.ru seem reputable enough. Both have reviews of this:[16] [17], adding to these the mtv mention, this looks good to stay. There's probably more in print, too; systemic bias and all that. Also rockeyez has a staff page listing its contributors, who have written for Metal Forces, Creem, Hit Parader etc. so it's not as bad as it seems. Metallers just like sites that look that way. 86.40.58.26 (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of those links actually reliable per Wikipedia standards? Can this be shown, not just presumed? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not correct to call it a presumption. I linked translations of their "about" pages which editors can go look at: they look good to me. This is a pretty solid way of determining the worth of a source when dealing with unfamiliar cultures or areas that are otherwise out of your expertise. I'm not going to wade through translations of web pages playing the old circular this-site-is-cited-by-another-site game when the "about" pages look this solid. You may wish to? Rather you than me, in any case. 86.40.58.26 (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Fred Figglehorn. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fred the movie[edit]

Fred the movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Endorsed PROD that has been contested. Non-notable future film per WP:NFF. Steamroller Assault (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Just saw this piece in the New York Times. I'm curious if this is enough to satisfy WP:NFF, which requires the production of the film (and not the film itself) to be notable. As it stands, this article is not about the production of the film. Not sure about this one. Maybe a merger to Fred Figglehorn? Steamroller Assault (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. I agree with User:Steamroller Assault. This article is essentially a pre-release announcement of a movie based on a You-Tube series. The article makes no effort to document the notability of the pre-released movie, and therefor, by Wikipedia policy, ought to be merged into the article about the You-Tube series. Scott P. (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There was already a discussion about this. The result was redirect to Fred Figglehorn. The discussion can be found there: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred: The Movie. Armbrust (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there is already a redirect about this. Armbrust (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Fred Figglehorn per the earlier discussion. EALacey (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this recent version without prejudice. As User:Spartaz noted in closing the last AFD just 2 weeks ago, "The sourcing isn't quite there yet but its close. the NYT is one but we need more then one really decent source and arguably this belongs with the main article until the coverage is more substantial, So I'm closing this as a redirect with a specific caveat that this can be undone as and when the sourcing improves without need to refer to me or have any further discussion." The way I see it, the film has been completed, is getting more coverage, and will quite soon merit an independent article. So being a bit proactively BOLD, I went ahead and just spent a few minutes creating a better-sourced article about the Fred movie and just moved the improved version to WP:INCUBATE at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Fred: The Movie. With respects to the authors of earlier versions, the Incubator is the better place to expand and improve the article as more becomes available. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect as per the extremely recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred: The Movie discussion. Do not merge as there is nothing here worth merging. JBsupreme (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• CSD as recreation of already deleted/redirected article per a ridiculously recent AfD already linked by others. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  With respects, the newer version included additional information, so it was not "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy", though the subject matter was the same. I will be happy to WP:AGF that the author of the second article was unaware of the first AFD discussion... one where the article was noted by the closer as almost-but-not-quit-ready for mainpages, and I make pparticular note of the closer writing "closing this as a redirect with a specific caveat that this can be undone as and when the sourcing improves without need to refer to me or have any further discussion". So I am sure the authors of both might be happy to work with WP:Incubation in adding additional sources and content in preparation for its return-without-prejudice as the release date for this completed film approaches. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NFF. Enough said. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Checking available sources show that film has enterered and completed principle filming, and has growing coverge that is approaching requirements of WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan (disambiguation)[edit]

Pakistan (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

disambiguation of Pakistan is nonsensical Arjun#talk 18:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment At first blush, it may seem that way, since most people don't think of Bangladesh as having once been East Pakistan, nor do they think of both West and East Pakistan as once having been part of British India. It's not unusual in separating between various articles, however. We also have United Kingdom (disambiguation), Germany (disambiguation), Korea (disambiguation), etc. Mandsford (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As Mandsford points out, it's not unusual to have a disambiguation page even where the main use is by far the most common one. It always makes me laugh to see the disambiguation page for AfD contains Appetite for Destruction, even though no-one ever abbreviates album names like that! I've editted the article, added a couple more things to show what I mean, I'm sure there's dozens of articles that could be added. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to explain change in use of name over time, but take off links to football teams, etc. Northwestgnome (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Keep the links to both the historical regions of East and West Pakistan. Remove the links to articles such as the Pakistan Army and whatnot. Canadian (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article only contained link to East Pakistan and West Pakistan when originally nomed - I added the others. If it's not appropriate for these to be on a disambiguation page then feel free to remove them, I'm not particularly experienced with this kind of page. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As said above, The article only contained link to East Pakistan and West Pakistan when originally nominated. My logic to nominate the page was that Bangladesh was referred to as East Pakistan and not Pakistan. Arjun#talk 12:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But we do have an article on East Pakistan, West Pakistan and Pakistan so disambiguation is appropriate Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Mandsford. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nomination is nonsensical. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The nomination may seem nonsensical, but it appears to have been made in good faith. Mjroots (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The disambiguation page is indeed helpful, but I think I can sympathize with this nomination. Sports teams have no place on this dab. JBsupreme (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, when the nomination was made just East Pakistan and West Pakistan were on it . I added the rest. I'm not experienced with disambig pages but thought I'd have a go. Very sorry if thats put your nose out of joint (as the edit summary for the article seems to suggest). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per users above. Georgiebest7 (talk · contribs) has added one more useful (and interesting) link to the page—Pakistan, India.--Zvn (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per users above and especially since there is a link to Pakistan, India. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems like a reasonable and useful (at least now it is) disambig. Cocytus [»talk«] 20:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 03:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Inn, Townsville[edit]

Holiday Inn, Townsville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Endorsed prod that was contested without reason, discussion on the talk page or any attempt to improve the article. (The relevant editor has previously removed maintenance tags without resolving the identified problems at this and other articles.[18][19])

Unreferenced article containing several dubious claims that fails to assert notability, other than it's the tallest building in Townsville, Queensland, Australia. At 120m, there are ferris wheels bigger than this. AussieLegend (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The building appears to have become a symbol of the community, according to this claim: "The Sugarshaker is used in many logos like the Townsville Sun or sport posters." It was probably written up in one or more architectural, construction or hotel industry publications when it was first built. - Eastmain (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It was probably written up" doesn't help much. The article was created by one of a pair of editors who have recently been uploading lots of copyrighted images, claiming them as their own, and adding copyrighted text to various articles. Despite this, I haven't been able to use what's in the articles to locate any facts and figures on an authoritative site (this appears to be thye first article they've actually created from scratch) to confirm what was originally added. The other one of the pair has since extensively changed what was originally there and I can't confirm the new figures. If we keep this article, all the unconfirmed figures will have to be removed which will make it a one line, unreferenced stub, something along the lines of "The Holiday Inn is a building in Townsville". --AussieLegend (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It appears that this deletion proposal is based on the article being poor and the other editors refusal to improve it (removing templates when improvement is needed sucks). That is a shame but both the building and the hotel appear to be notable. I would like to see more coverage on the actual building but a Google News search shows that there is coverage. Google Books shows some mentions in travel books, also. I lean towards the general notability guideline being met even though some of the coverage is trivial. Wikipedia:WikiProject Hotels and Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture do not have specific notability guidelines which would have helped but the subject falls under those topics so notability isn't that it is kind of tall (even though being a significant part of that city's skyline could be considered). It looks to be an iconic building in a city but more sources are needed to verify that claim. Someone local who is actually interested in improving the article (it sounds like some weren't playing ball) might be able to see if there is anything mentioned in local printed press and magazines.Cptnono (talk)

  The nomination is primarily based on the general lack of notability. Once you get rid of the accommodation directories, which really can't be used to justify notability, otherwise every seedy motel could have an article, there's very little mention of the building anywhere. The article creator included a number of claims and specifications, which were then severely edited by the other major contributor to the article. As I indicated, I haven't been able to find anything to confirm or deny what either of those editors added. Most of their contributions to date have been lifted from various websites so it has been easy to identify the sources through a simple google search. On this building, the search was unsuccessful and, from the tone, it appears they must have had to create this one from scratch, such is the lack of coverage. Even editors who voted "keep" doesn't seem to have been able to find much. The building just isn't notable. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to say your intent was malicious. I thought it might have been out of frustration, though. I am striking my keep. I still assume there is coverage out there but I am not having any luck finding what I personally feel would be appropriate. The status quo for buildings seems to allow for a stub for such an article but since there isn't a specific guideline to point us in the right direction I can't tell if that is just a previous lack of diligence. I also noticed tham some of the recent coverage was based on one incident taking place at the hotel. I'm still on the fence but am not comfortable whole heartedly supporting. If this article is deleted, I feel that it would take little more coverage wise to meet GNG. A couple write ups on the initial construction, its relation to local ordinances, its iconic status, or similar would help.Cptnono (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - see WP:CHAIN. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesnt appear to be notable not mentioned in the Townsville article either as being of note. MilborneOne (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In regards to WP:CHAIN, it appears to be more than a hotel. In regards to the Wikipeida article, that is a poor basis unless it is spectacular in the assessment scale. I actually came across a PDF on the city's website that referred to it as an icon. It was only a trivial mention though. As I said up above, I am assuming notability on this one but understand a couple solid sources are needed.Cptnono (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For what it's worth, the building does dominate Townsville's skyline, so there's a reasonable chance that it is notable on the basis of coverage in the local media. The building would be utterly unremarkable in a larger city though. Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's a hotel and it's a funny shape. Not all that notable as far as I'm concerned. Wexcan  Talk  08:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete along with Jauerback per WP:CHAIN. Tons of precedent left and right on how these are treated in all sorts of forms and this is an example of why we have that to point to. Even if it's "popular" locally and has a distinct look, those are moot points. Unless it fits into the extremely narrow specs of uniquely artistic or original architecture, I'm not sure how one could even start a talking point to claim notability with literally nothing to work off of other than that it's proven to exist. For completion's sake, I'll say that It's far below the consensus on building height suggesting notability, and "tallest locally" isn't outlined in any way. Though I do respect hard work efforts done in good faith to make a "complete" set of articles for one's subject of interest, Wikipedia doesn't promote notability merely for existing. Importance and notability are entirely different, and a Wikia would be the forum where such concerns are rarely raised. We have lots of comprehensive areas of fine articles for smaller communities, so to the authors I say you have every right to keep your chin up. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Edit forgot my signature for the first time in ages. Sorry![reply]
• Delete. I'm not aware of any criteria that this passes notability under. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No one but the nominator recommends deletion. (Non-admin closure by Intelligentsium 00:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

C10k problem[edit]

C10k problem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In my attempts to find information on this topic, every page I found that mentioned "C10K problem" either used the term as a given without justifying it, or referred to the Kegel page referenced in this page, which implies that such a limit exists, without substantiating the implication, and then deal entirely with ways to increase the amount of traffic a web server can handle without any of that text relying on a 10K limit in particular. I don't see that this is a notable topic because it seems to be one person's name for an unsubstantiated phenomenon, and I don't find any evidence that that 10K limit exists. So, possible WP:N and possible WP:V. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP - C10K Problem is very real. Simoncpu (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have evidence for this? Since the problem I cited is that I couldn't find real evidence of it, and none is given in the article, we need more than a repetition of the belief that it exists to help us out. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kegel's thesis is the evidence of the problem that we have been experiencing for quite some time now. The C10K label caught on because that label makes sense. Many software developers need not much convincing of its existence because it's pretty obvious. My first impression that someone was questioning its WP:N was "duh." WP:V is possible though. Here are some of the links that reference the C10K Problem. Simoncpu (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1534139
      • DOI.org
      • http://www.wandisco.com/pdf/dcone-whitepaper.pdf
      • http://www.lanl.gov/radiant/pubs/hptcp/tcpwindow.ps
      • http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~kaushikv/papers/sirocco_febid.pdf
      • http://cs.uni-salzburg.at/~ck/teaching/CS-Seminar-Summer-2004/claudiu-survey.pdf
      • http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~mdw/papers/seda-hotos01.pdf
      • The first two links above describe something that was given the name "reverse C10k problem" based on the existence of the alleged C10k problem. Every other one of these mentions it and refers the reader, every time, to Kegel's page, http://www.kegel.com/c10k.html. And on that page, all he says is, "It's time for web servers to handle ten thousand clients simultaneously, don't you think? After all, the web is a big place now." He, like all the other sources, makes a remark that presupposes there actually is such a limit as the C10k limit, while not providing us with any evidence that anyone has ever actually found there to be such a limit of approximately 10,000 connections. I'm not saying I disbelieve it, but I am saying that so far the "evidence" that has been provided doesn't lift it above the level of "a common conception", doesn't distinguish it from any urban legend or old wive's tale. —Largo Plazo (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the problem is not really the 10K connections. The problem is that if the server is not programmed with this "aim", then the server has capable of serving few connections (more than hardware supports). Servers that attach C10k problem, really attach the problem that programming it for that the limitation was the hardware of the server and not the software. And 10K connections is a reasonable limit for such aim. But it's true that there is only one reference (in essence). Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xan2 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep If there are published academic papers referring to a variant of it (the reverse C10K)m, then it seems reasonable that the problem that is the basis for that name must be very well known in its field. I think the evidence shows some degree of notability. Question, though: is Kegel notable enough for an article--if so, there's a possible merge .
  • Hoaxes, legends, and misconceptions can be very well known. I think the issue here is whether it's real. If a topic in information technology were notable, it's very hard to imagine that it would be so difficult to find anything substantiating it on the Web; and if no one can provide any resource (unlike the ones given above) that substantiates it rather than presupposing it, it's tough to see what an article on it could be about. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep To clarify, the "limit" is certainly not any kind of hard limit; as noted above there won't be any citations found to support this limit. It is simply a recognition that certain kinds of very popular server architectures can't get much beyond a few thousand simultaneous connections. See yaws (web server) - different threading systems are one way to get beyond this limit, lighttpd uses another, select/poll/epoll. I'm confused by this AFD proposal. Can someone enlighten me about the WP:V complaint? Is there some question that web servers like apache run into these limits? WP:N is just crazy talk - see the papers linked above, see the lighttpd article - it was created in response to c10k! ErikHaugen (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...there won't be any citations found to support this limit". You're saying strongly that we should have an unsourced article about something that doesn't exist because something similar to it does exist. I'm quite certain that somebody is capable of writing an article about the phenomenon that does exist, under a title that does not imply the existence of the phenomenon that doesn't exist, with reliable sources that document the real phenomenon, rather than a link to a document that doesn't in any way support the fake phenomenon other than to claim (falsely) that it exists. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't a fake phenomenon. http://www.sics.se/~joe/apachevsyaws.html See the little blue and green squiggles in the left side of this graph? This is real. C10k is a name used to describe it. It's overly precise and won't always be accurate, but it is nonetheless a name used for it. ErikHaugen (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is it with people providing references that don't even mention, let alone, support, the thing being claimed? There is no mention on this page of a C10k phemonenon. There is no mention of the number 10,000. All this page shows is that Apache seems to be limited to this number of simultaneous connections, while Yaws seems to be able achieve that number of simultaneous connections. In fact, the number achieved by Yaws is 80,000, which, to the best of my knowledge is much more than 10,000, so while somehow you have the impression that this page in some way supports the existence of a phenomenon known as the C10k limit, it actually seems to be a demonstration I might present it to show that there is no such limit. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The link shows the difference between Apache, which like "most web servers" mentioned in the wp article uses a separate o/s thread/process for each connection, and exotic web servers like yaws or lighttpd, which don't - they have "solved" the c10k problem. The graph shows the enormous limitation that web servers constrained by the c10k problem suffer; they are only able to use a fraction of the available hardware. It's quite a dramatic experiment, and clearly demonstrates the failure of the conventional model to handle lots of connections. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the last part of your question, you answered WP:V yourself: you said "the 'limit' is not any kind of hard limit ... there won't be any citations to support such limit". This "limit" isn't verifiable because it doesn't exist. End of story: the article doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's criterion that articles must be about verifiable topics; if it's false then it certainly isn't verifiable. That there is some limit isn't remarkable: at every single point in computing history, there has been a limit on processor speed, a limit on storage speed and capacity, a limit on network bandwidth and number of connections. The whole point of the alleged C10K problem is that some special, perplexing limit of around 10,000 connections—near enough to warrant the name—has been reached and has been a special source of frustration. And yet, here you are, telling me that it's a fiction, and in response to my concern that there doesn't seem to be any corroboration supporting it, you confirm that there isn't any such corroboration—and yet you feel strongly that this article on this unverifiable, nay, false topic should be kept. I don't get it. And let's not even get into notability, unless someone wants to rewrite the entire article to be about a notable gross misconception prevailing in some quarters that some limit called "C10k" exists. And even then, to avoid being an original research piece, that article would have to provide citations to resources that address this misconception (widely accepted hoax?), rather than making the first-person observation that there are a lot of references to C10k out there. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thread/process based servers that many were/are using, such as Apache, hit a limit of a few thousand simultaneous connections, thus underutilizing the hardware for non-cpu/etc bound services. What is hard to understand about this? This isn't controversial, is it? In a few years, better hardware might mean the limit is typically 20-30k instead of a few thousand, sure - but the problem is still referred to as c10k, at least for now. The shortcomings of this architecture are surely interesting enough for an article. What else would you call it? Should we rename the article? Is there another we could merge it with? ErikHaugen (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nothing is hard to understand about your first sentence. Your first sentence, however, is not what this article says. Your first sentence has nothing to do with whether there's a specific phenomenon, as claimed in the article, called the C10k phenomenon, that supposedly has something to do, specifically, with the number 10,000? If you'd like to write an article about connection limits on various platforms and their progression over the years, and can provide sources that support what you write about them, please feel free. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've tried to say this elsewhere - I think it might be helpful to stop getting hung up on the number 10,000. The problem is called the c10k problem, and perhaps that is a lousy name since it will probably be 50k in a few years, but that is a name for the problem, and the name is quite popular. Not much we can do about that here. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's go back and look at the very first sentence in the article: "The C10k problem [1] is the name given to a limitation that most web servers currently have which limits the web servers capabilities to only handle about ten thousand simultaneous connections." I didn't make up that this problem is supposed to have something to do with ten thousand connections: it's the salient point of the lead sentence of the article.
        1. Are any references given in the article that support this? No.
        • Is your point that the article needs more references, or are you unconvinced that the phenomenon is real? ErikHaugen (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • My point is that all the references provided by people determined to document the problem turn out to be non-references, which convinces me even more that there are no actual references, and the whole concept of the C10k problem as defined in the article (and also as implied by its name) is not verifiable. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        1. Do any of the references provided by anybody in this discussion corroborate this? No.
        • I provided experimental results demonstrating that conventional server architectures can't get past a few thousand connections. See Simoncpu's links above - other academics cite Kegel's article in discussion about how thread/process based architectures don't scale as well as event-driven architectures. Is the fact that this phenomenon is discussed in academic papers good enough? ErikHaugen (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I already said, at any given technological point in history, any medium or device has various capacity limits. I'm sure that 30 years ago there were limits to the number of connections a system could support, and 20 years ago there were limits as well, albeit larger than the ones 10 years earlier, and there are such limits now. I have yet to see where, in this natural progression, C10k suddenly comes into it, and why 10,000 connections calls for special note. You've said elsewhere that I'm "hung up" on the number 10,000. Well, 10k: there it is, right in front of me, in its name, and also in the article's lead section. This deletion discussion is not about deleting the concept of C10k, and it isn't about deleting the concepts of connection limitations or processing inefficiencies or model improvements. It's about deleting this article, which, as it stands, is about something that doesn't exist, and identifying it by a name that you claim doesn't really mean what it says--except that the article claims it does mean what it says. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • C10K is a term people use commonly to describe the problem. You're right, it is not a very precise/accurate/timeless name (we're going in circles here, I think, about this), but it is the name people are using. Many links have been provided here to support the contention that the name is in widespread use, throughout academia and industry. You seem to agree that an article about the phenomenon itself is potentially reasonable to include on Wikipedia? So... sounds like we can either rename the article or merge/redirect it with another one that describes the problem (is there one?), or you can modify the article to clarify that the 10k limit is not a magical hard limit. Do any of these sound good? ErikHaugen (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        1. Do any of the references provided in this discussion state in any kind of authoritative way what the C10k problem is, as opposed to taking its existence for granted? No.
        • Irrelevant. Maybe it would help to think of c10k as a cultural thing. Clearly it exists, because people are talking about it; referenced from papers, etc - do a google search. The phrase "C10K" is not obscure, and needs an article on its own even if the concept is bogus. It isn't bogus, of course, but that's just gravy as far as whether or not this article should be deleted. In any case, to answer your question, the Kegel article explains what the problem is. Nobody else needs to, because it's explained there. Look at this page: http://www.javafaq.nu/java-article572.html - this is a description of a library that uses c10k in the description and defines it. See how this is being used? Clearly we need this wp article! ErikHaugen (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't carry articles in Wikipedia about things about whose existence some people are convinced exists. We carry articles about things whose existence is supported by reliable documentation. Was there a Year 2000 problem about which Wikipedia should have an article? Yes, there are thousands of sources that explain in detail what the Year 2000 problem is, that indicate what it actually has to do with the year 2000, that indicate in detail what the specific problems were that needed to be addressed, that indicate what kinds of measures were taken to address it, that indicate what kind of failures resulted from inadequate measures taken to address it. In response to the same kind of question about the C10k problem, we are shown sources that imply that it exists or in which the writer is under the understanding that exists, but nothing that shows that it exists. We are shown sources that show that different platforms are limited to different numbers of connections, the general issue of connection limits as opposed to a very specific phenomenon that this article purports to be about. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For create a common consense. In my opinion, Largoplazo is right in that the article has _not_ realiable sources. We only have the lighttpd and nginx paragraphs and it's not enougth for any enciclopedia. So we must search sources of this problem. For the other hand, the 10K limit is trivial. It suggests that web servers not benefit from all hardware power of servers. It seems that if the programmers don't program web server for doing it, the web server serves most few pages than it could be serve for hardware limitations. So 10K is not a hard limit. It's a soft limit. A limit for remind this situation. I propose that we create another article: "Software limitations of web servers" or something else and redirect C10k to this page and note in software limitations.... that C10k is one term used to refer to this situation, but as a limit, is soft. What do you think?--Xan2 (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A limit for remind this situation." - well put. wrt your suggestion, sounds good, go for it! Please leave c10k intact until you create the other article, though, so people can find it when they want to know what c10k means. ErikHaugen (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps c10k can redirect here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_server#Load_limits but this section would need to to be fleshed out quite a bit first, it doesn't even touch on c10k (ie, it should be fleshed out anyway!). ErikHaugen (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Largoplazo - you said above that "Hoaxes, legends, and misconceptions can be very well known. I think the issue here is whether it's real." I don't think this is the issue, actually. The issue is whether the page should be deleted. We have many pages devoted to hoaxes - piltdown man, etc. I don't think there's any question that we want a page for a particular hoax if it is notable enough. These WP:V discussions belong on the article's talk page - should the c10k article say that c10k is a hoax? That's not the debate here. (c10k is, of course, not a hoax, I'm just saying that whether it is or not is not germane to this AFD.) ErikHaugen (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Either edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_server#Load_limits to cover c10k (it doesn't ATM), or keep the page with some 'unstubbing' (it doesn't look as a correct, developed article now); everybody on this AfD agrees the conception exists, even if hard to verify clearly (UFOs are way more unverifiable, but they still DO exist UFO, even if only as an urban legend or the name of objects that can't be identified properly), there are many benchmarks supporting its existence (see the sources provided above); the point is (in my opinion), that Largo Plazo doesn't understand that while the name 'y2k problem' is less commonly used (albeit still used) to cover many similar problems (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y2k#Date_bugs_similar_to_Y2K refer ), the name c10k refer to a limit that's only CALLED c10k (and it's not 'soft' in the sense of being easily changeable by upgrading the hardware or software - it's 'soft' because it differs between various specific H/S configurations); the article could be as well called 'Simultaneous Web Server Connection & Load Limits Due To The Underlying Software And Hardware Problems And Limitations' - but IMO that would be redundant, as this particular one is already known in the jargon as the 'c10k problem'... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaxquis (talk • contribs) 21:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There must be thousands and thousands of pages about UFOs on the Web, such that the Wikipedia on UFOs could reference them, and one could look to them to corroborate and expand on what's written in the article. I am not talking about pages where the someone uses the word UFO in passing, or says, "Here's what we can do about UFOs" without giving any background in what a UFO is or is even supposed to be. I'm talking about pages about UFOs. Not one person in this discussion has managed, despite all their insistence, to provide one comparable page about the alleged C10k problem. Why is that? —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is your point that C10K might be a bogus concept? Why are you asking for this? Anyway, to answer it, several have been mentioned above. What is wrong with these: http://www.javafaq.nu/java-article572.html http://www.kegel.com/c10k.html Help me understand what is missing and why it matters. ErikHaugen (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info Directions Inc.[edit]

Info Directions Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Twice nominated and once deleted per A7, fails WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep gnews produces [20] and a few similar. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added some references. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there is no claim to notability in accordance with WP:CORP. Having products, an office and some staff is not notable in itself, and this article reads like a PR piece or business directory entry. Notability to come, perhaps. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Notability is asserted by the uniqueness of the company's products and by the company's appearance on various lists such as the Inc. 500 and (less interestingly) the Rochester Top 100. It is not necessary that a company be fascinating to the layperson for it to be notable by Wikipedia standards. - Eastmain (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not notable. Sources provided are routine business coverage. Miami33139 (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. To Names of the United States, as long as that article exists. — Sebastian 02:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoa Kỳ[edit]

Hoa Kỳ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe that this should either be merged into another (as yet unidentified) article or deleted. On the talkpage, it's twice been suggested that it shouldn't be here, with no formal action taken. The term is acknowledged in the article as no longer being in use. I misread the article, it's still the official name of the USA in Vietnam, but other countries names for different countries are generally redirects (Royaume-Uni & Pays de Galles for UK and Wales respectively, French to English. España to a disambiguation for the use also shows that we don't give specific pages to countries own names for themselves.). I don't really think it's a notable term. Fol de rol troll (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's extensive material at Flag_of_the_United_States#The_.22Flower_Flag.22_arrives_in_Asia which could be considered too long for that article; maybe both could be merged into a "Flower flag" article... AnonMoos (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this article. This is a rather notable subject and deserving of coverage at our encyclopedia. Badagnani (talk) 03:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could you please explain why it's notable, it might give me a clearer idea of why the article should be kept. Fol de rol troll (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm rather curious as to why you're vouching to keep this article - you were the only one to suggest deletion/move to Wiktionary on the talk page... GraYoshi2x►^talk

• Keep Seems well worth including in the encyclopedia. A possible merge can be discussed on the article's talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete (or Merge if an appropriate target can be found and agreed on). There doesn't seem to be enough to say about this to justify an article. Propaniac (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC) See below. Propaniac (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It's amazing that this article has been here for 2 years and nothing has happened to it, especially since Wikipedia != Wiktionary/trivia site. At the very most (and this is a stretch), it should be redirected to Flag of the United States. GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect (WP:NOTDICDEF) to United States of America (not Flag of the United States) since the term refers to the country, not the flag. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 04:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - "Flower flag" is the title of the Flag of the United States article in Chinese Wikipedia. It has a stand-alone article in the Japanese Wikipedia, separate from the article on the US flag. While this article itself might appear redundant, I agree with AnonMoos that the current redirect of Flower Flag could and should be reconsidered. I would argue that it may well merit an article of its own. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I now realise that my comment was off-topic. The article under discussion is about the name of the United States in Vietnamese, instead of what I wrote the name of the flag of the United States in Vietnamese, or in others of the CJKV Sprachbund. This is of course outside the scope of AfD-ing. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It would be informative and interesting to have a Wikipedia article on names of the United States—with direct transliterations—in other languages. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, I had the same thought while looking at this. Propaniac (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to the newly-created Names of the United States, perhaps by adding a "Notes" column to the list on that page. Propaniac (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I question whether that article is even appropriate for Wikipedia; it seems like a good candidate for deletion seeing as Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, or for that matter, an international phrase list. GraYoshi2x►^talk 20:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge This term is being used by US representative offices in Vietnam and it has its own history. Therefore, I think it is notable and is encyclopedic enough.--AM ^(talk) 02:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Merge. The article should be a redirect to Flag_of_the_United_States#The_.22Flower_Flag.22_arrives_in_Asia, where the origin of the term is explained. The French name for the U.S., États-Unis d'Amérique, is a redirect article -- even though this is just a literal translation of the English name. Kauffner (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, that is, not for really anything. –MuZemike 06:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is, there is a stronger consensus for a rename or a merge/redirect, but there are other venues for that. –MuZemike 06:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High-end audio cables[edit]

High-end audio cables (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Confused mess of an article rife with original research. Is this an article about high-end audio? Well... no, it appears to be about a niche market in audio cables, but that niche is ill-defined and no clear standards are given. Besides which, the "high-end" audio market is already covered in the audiophile article. Is this an article about audio cables? Kind of. It reiterates information about speaker wire, coaxial cables, plenum cables and others, but again there's no clear definition of what exactly it is talking about. There's also some info on metallurgy, mentions of a few consumer products tests, etc. With no definitive subject there can be no article. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 14:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to Audio cable, or merge with Speaker cable. There's a valid topic in here, and it can be saved. (Audio cable currently redirects to Audio and video connector, which isn't about cables at all.) Pburka (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all. The audio and video connector article is about audio cables, namely RCA connectors and phono connectors that use coaxial and patch cables. Speaker wire may be terminated with a few different connectors, or simply threaded directly through a binding post. And what about the power cables discussed in this article, does anyone have an explanation of how these qualify as "high-end audio cables"? There's a lot of random info in this article, but no one topic, and not much worth salvaging. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect: to High-end audio which seems like a very similar article. Mattg82 (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - 'high end' is meaningless marketing speak. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is exactly about the controversy surrounding cables sold with such "meaningless marketing speak". Pcap ping 11:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but Rename to Premium audio cable. There is an established market for this sort of stuff and it's not going away. "High end" is a terrible term, since many of these cables perform identically to their more reasonably priced counterparts (e.g. a 6 foot Monster SPDIF cable) where as sometimes there is meaningful added value (particularly for analog signals in noise-sensitive environments - like electric guitar cables). But in all cases, these products are priced/overpriced - for which "premium" is an accurate term. Reswobslc (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A better title would be Premium audiophile cables, because it also covers super duper mains power cables sold to those that believe such cables improve the audio quality of their equipment. Pcap ping 11:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/Merge to High-end audio. As this article stands, it is a blatant POV fork. It looks like it's only intention is to disparage the high-end audio cable market, without discussing any of the positive arguments about it. However, there is some useful information in this article, and I recommend that the non-POV data gets merged into the parent article. (X! · talk)  · @771  ·  17:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a POV fork. The premium cables business, and the controversies surrounding it are sufficiently developed sub-topic, so a separate article is justified. Feel free to add a WP:SUMMARY to the main article. Pcap ping 11:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that High-end audio is surprisingly short article. A merge would be possible, although I'm worried that the cable controversy is longer than the rest of that parent article! Pcap ping 11:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a well known controversial topic in audio circles as evidenced the many references. The article can be made NPOV by citing all relevant opinions and science. The topic is not inherently POV. Pcap ping 01:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment. The problem with the term is there are no objective standards for membership in the class. One can readily carry out measurements to identify a 50 ohm transmission cable, or test to see if something really is a 1000 amp cable...but the "high end" description is just written on the box. If I charge $100 for a roll of 14 AWG zip cord, is it a "high end" cable? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a list, so you don't need "objective standards for membership in the class". You just need references discussing the topic. And there are plenty in the article. Pcap ping 11:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Audio cable (which is a redirect to Audio connector right now. The naming convention of this article right now is all wrong, and having these very similar articles separate is an administrative nightmare. It would be much easier for a reader to have it put together coherently in one article rather than spread out among three or four. Shadowjams (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is not only about audio cables. It also has a section on super duper mains power cables sold to people that think those would make a difference to their audiophile experience. I suggested above it be renamed to Premium audiophile cables instead, which better describes the article's contents. Pcap ping 11:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That just seems unnecessary. That's an uncommon phrasing. I would search for audio cable, maybe for high-end audio cable. I can never imagine searching for audiophile cable. Obviously redirects would be in place, but it still seems unnecessarily clunky. Shadowjams (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Rename This topic has been covered in many audiophile magazines (from both sides) and certainly needs its own article but the current article title doesn't suit the topic. Premium audiophile cables is a much better title and is more representative of this subject. I was surprised to see that the article currently doesn't mention the "cryogenically treated" power receptacles which have undergone a cryogenic treatment and are resold/marketed by some of the companies in this industry as I would have expected to see those noted along with the mains cables. (And where are the braided Cat-5 speaker cables?) --Tothwolf (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal - What if we expanded it. High-end cable, for instance. There are going to be the same processes in creating them, similar price points, and there could be sub-sections of each. In the unlikely event one of those subsections grows too large, it can be forked under the traditional fork criteria. But I think right now it meets a lot of the merge criteria. What I don't want to see is lots of tiny articles overlapping each other, with contradictions and errors that overlap is prone to. Shadowjams (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm really not sure what title we should give the eventual article but I don't think the term "High end" fits. Perhaps something like Premium cable assemblies? The origins of these type of cables are from the audiophile market, but it has indeed spread into computing as well. I doubt many people here have not seen the fancy gold flash-plated D-subminiature cables or the "mega-high-performance" USB and network cables, who's manufacturers make all sorts of interesting claims ;) --Tothwolf (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, possibly rename to Premium audio cable. I agree with the assertion above that this topic is notable and can be written from a neutral point of view. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 03:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shekhana kalan[edit]

Shekhana kalan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod; non-notable, unreferenced, pov issues. etc. Falcon8765 (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems to be just part of a town, and not uniquely notable. Priyanath ^talk 00:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesnt warrant a separate article --Sodabottle (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unreferenced article with a dubious non encyclopedic claim of notabilty is one of the best area of this town . MilborneOne (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing to support notability. --MelanieN (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Continue discussion of the article's improvement on the relevant talk page. (Non-admin closure by Intelligentsium 00:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Andrej Grubacic[edit]

Andrej Grubacic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of article doesn't meet notability guidelines MarkNau (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. So I am not the maker of this page. I was one the people editing it.

The subject of this entry is a yugoslav (now serbian) anarchist. His relevance resides in the fact that he is a well known anarchist theorist. His influence is important there. He is arguably the best know anarchist from the Balkans.

I happen to know this because my parents are from croatia and I still spend a lot of time there.

We moved to redwood city, ca, few years ago.

I am also an anarchist and a student and i am familiar with the importance of the author for the international and regional anarchist movement.

I gather this is why his entry was made in the first place.

I looked at other living anarchists on wikipedia. The subject of the entry is better documented then many, if not most other anarchists. What i see as a mistake is that he is listed as an academic, which is clearly misleading.

His importance is in realm of anarchist theory and activism. I believe that this should be evident, both in English and local languages. Maker of this page, as well as myself and other editors, inserted verifiable references as to the importance of Grubacic to the anarchist world. Action and theory. So I suggest that we remove anything that indicate that Grubacic is important as an academic. Don't get me wrong, i don't want to be unfair. He is a scholar. There are not too many anarchist scholars around.

That is important.

As me and others tried to emphasize, he is the author of two very important books for the contemporary American anarchist movement.

I am referring especially to the recent Wobblies and Zapatistas. They are reading groups all over the country and that book serves as a reference point for many anarchists and Marxist rethinking their practice and relationship. It is read from Ireland to Croatia, and reviewed by likes of Chomsky and Zinn and Graeber (another important theorist).

He also is one of the leading anarchist propagandist in the US and the Balkans.

There is an abundance of links that speak of his anarchist propaganda tours and talks.

But what I am really trying to say is that this should be seen in the context of his anarchism (theory and action).

To sum up, my voice and suggestion goes to keeping the entry, but to make it clear that Grubacic's relevance is that he is an anarchist activist and anarchist scholar. He is one of the few. He is internationally relevant for the anarchist movement. There are enough references, I maintain, to testify to this fact.

I also made a comparison with other anarchist from the Retort collective, like Iain boal, or other important living anarchists from the United States, like Cindy Milstein, and it seems clear that, comparatively speaking, his relevance and notability has been established by relevant sources.

So, I say, let's keep the entry and change the lead (important anarchist, not academic). Bobmarley13 (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skomoroh, who is the maker of the page, will write his position on this during the holidays. I am curious as to what he has to say. Bobmarley13 (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —GregorB (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The only cites on GS are 6, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1. That's all. Subject, as academic or anarchist, does not appear to pass WP:Prof #1 or any other category. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment. I believe that, in the world of anarchist thought, the subject does indeed pass. As i remarked before, this is well referenced for a living anarchists. It needs tiding up. I strongly insist that anarchist task force should look at this and make a recommendation.Bobmarley13 (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It seems incongruous that anarchists, who so vehemently reject structured institutions, should seek to be recognised in a structured institution such as Wikipedia but, of course, this does not make them unWP:notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

This is an incorrect understanding of certain elements of anarchist theory. Primarily, anarchists reject institutions of power and authority. Certain anarchists may reject institutions in general, preferring "organic" organizations which do not outlive the short term goals of their founders. Others prefer organizations of varying size and composition which they may accept as institutions intended to outlive their founders. Examples of the latter which anarchists have founded, or co-founded, include the IWW (a non-anarchist institution co-founded by anarchists such as Lucy Parsons) and the Anarchist Black Cross (an explicitly anarchist project founded by multiple anarchists, which has undergone a morphology as it as been disbanded, recreated, and split into decentralized formats). Similarly, the Anarchist Task Force of Wikipedia has been founded as a long standing institution intended to provided editors with an interest in anarchist related articles. It is currently ebbing in activity, but will remain to continue its mission as its original founders move on. --Cast (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion.

• Comment. Interesting point about anarchists and structures. I am an anarchist in my 20's, and most of my formation happened back in the "old country'. But my understanding of anarchism, which might be different from other peoples understanding, and more cultural-specific, in a sense of a post-socialist experience and all, is that anarchism is not opposed to structures and institutions. It is the nature of structure/institution that concerns an anarchist. Is it democratic, or directly democratic, is it hierarchical or less hierarchical. For me, anarchism is a form of organization, networked, decentralized, democratic. I am all for democratic and free institutions that make for a democratic, free society. I am new at wikipedia, but this is why I decided to join. My impression is that wikipedia is a decentralized, networked, democratic project. I was very influenced by Grubacic and Graeber (and Milstein) who are writing about anarchism from this pro-institutional, pro-democratic perspective. There are some newer anarchists who are against everything, all structures and communities, but that is not my thing. Many anarchists I know are very pro-institutional.Bobmarley13 (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Reviewing the activity of the article creator, Skomorokh, I see his original intention of steering this article clear of original research, and unverifiable sources. It seems that after he stopped maintaining it, several editors began "enhancing" the article with unhelpful, but perhaps will intentioned additions. I note that the AfD nominator, Bobmarley13, is among these, and in a further display of misunderstanding, as brought this editor to AfD despite not actually desiring to delete it. The nominator simply wishes to encourage a process of consensus towards an end he(?) favors. AfD is not clean up. AfD is not arbitration. AfD is not the appropriate space for this nomination. In the future, I hope the nominator will not nominate articles for deletion after having himself taken part in the corruption of the article.--Cast (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. but it wasnt me. i am not the AfD nominator for this one. Bobmarley13 (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, I apologize profusely. I completely misread the nominator entry due to the absence of a "Keep" notice preceding your commentary. --Cast (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Though I am unversed in the subject matter, I can accept in complete good faith that Skomorokh, an administrator with over 50,000,000 edits and over 150 articles created seems to have a pretty good idea of what and why a subject is notable enough for Wikipedia. I also accept in good faith that the nominator might not have been aware of this. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The person who originates an article is not a criteria for notability. MarkNau (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am admittedly unable to knowledgably pass judgement on this article's content. Per WP:AGF, I believe I am allowed to accept that a senior editor and admin with 50 thousand edits and 156 created articles pretty much knows what is notable and what is not before he authors a Wikipedia article, and that he would not have wasted his time on something non-notable. WP:AGF allows that I may show confidence ijn his knowledge and understanding of WP:N and bow to his expertise as editor, admin, and long-time contributor to the project. User:Skomorokh has a well-deserved reputation as a contributor, so I can easily consider that fact when weighing the value of his contribution. After all, its not as if he had only been here a few months or had less than 200 edits. We'd all do well to emulate his efforts at improving the project. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• weak Keep when dealing with unfamiliar fields, I do to a very considerable extent accept the judgment of Wikipedians I know to be good editors of long standing who do work regularly in the subject, whether they comment here or write the article. His principal English language book, [21] has indeed been reviewed, & he has severa larticles in anthologies. The ones not in English I cannot judge. but several American libraries have them. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As I think removing the article would not benefit wikipedia's readers. (But this is true of many articles, particularly of noted academics, that are deleted). Grubacic seems to me notable within US (and perhaps Yugoslav) anarchism. But we do not seem to have any guidelines to help us in this area of fringe political propagandists/commentators. Most of the evidence seems to me to be is self propaganda, self published bloggish type things and things published by involved niche publishers which the author is connected with. But this is likely to be the case whereever an activist who is involved with pushing his views is concerened. Despite the fact that Wikipedia may be being used as part of this agenda (and I think the tone - and the relationship between one of the article's main editors and the article's subject lend support to this view) this is not justification for deletion - rather the article needs in my view modification. I think it needs to be given a more neutral tone. Also many of the cited sources did not seem to support the claims being made. I myself have been "warned off" from improving the article. Finally I think it is the role as a propaganda or view pusher that he is known and the using the books for notability should be in this way rather than as if they were academic books since he might then be judged according to our very harsh academic criteria. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The book Wobblies & Zapatistas: Conversations on Anarchism, Marxism and Radical History has been reviewed here: Anarchist Studies, 2009 by Jun, Nathan. This includes the potentially useful quote "Andrej Grubacic, a younger intellectual who is esteemed in anarchist circles but not as well known outside of them". The journal Anarchist Studies has a page and so does it's editor Ruth Kinna (Msrasnw (talk) 13:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Neutral but leaning toward delete per Msrasnw, for now. Yes I said per editor who voted keep. S/he stated it perfectly in my opinion; "Most of the evidence seems to me to be is self propaganda, self published bloggish type things and things published by involved niche publishers which the author is connected with." and "Despite the fact that Wikipedia may be being used as part of this agenda (and I think the tone - and the relationship between one of the article's main editors and the article's subject lend support to this view)" I do believe this justifies deletion. Firstly, subject is not Croatian, he is Serbian, thus mis-placed in this deletion sorting. The sources listed as the one with most weight (#6 and #18) claim they are major Serbian newspapers - NOT SO. These are diaspora publications in Canada, and such publications by Balkan emigrants in diaspora are not very independent and reliable. Also, there are obvious COI issues by editor BobMarley who has contributed nothing to the project except this article since July of 2008. Article subject may have great ideas and theories, and I would bet anything he will become notable in the future. However, that time is not now, and this article would only serve to artifically inflate notability of subject prematurely. Turqoise127 (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you are mistaken there turqoise. what you read as diaspora papers are reprints from glas javnosti, a journal that has a contract with toronto papers. glas javnosti is a major serbian daily paper. i repeatedly said that grubacic is from serbia, not croatia, and that his relevance is of an anarchist, not an academic. i might be new to wikipedia, but that should not affect this article (i am not its maker). i do want to make the effort of getting more actively interested and making entry pages of my own. back to the facts: grubacic is a well known anarchist, not a well known academic, so we should keep this entry. most of the well known anarchists, if not all of them, are fringe authors publishing for small anarchist press. that does not make them not worthy or notable. best wishes, Bobmarley13 (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am not disposed to accept the unsupported opinion of any editor, no matter how distinguished. In view of the large amount of political POV pushing that this AfD has generated I think that it should be dealt with strictly by the book. It seems that the subject does not meet any of the criteria of WP:Prof. Does he pass on WP:Author, WP:Politician or other criteria? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I am skeptical. We are talking about an anarchist author (living anarchist author). Like with most other activists on what someone dismissively called "the fringe," authorship cannot be judged "strictly by the book," i dont think. There must be some flexibility. That is why i kept pointing out to other relevant living anarchist authors. If you take a look at Cindy Milstein entry, or Iain Boal entry, you will see that there is no great monument there. But their influence in anarchist circles is paramount. Grubacic, Graeber, Milstein are authors of the new anarchism concept. There must be a more specific way of dealing with this. Moreover, some people keep addressing anarchism as being somehow the "fringe," but I find this to be profoundly misleading. Anarchism is the very center of global social movements today; this movement is not fringe but a serious counter-hegemonic force to be reckoned with. Another thing is that I believe it is a methodological problem to ask people who do not know anything about the subject matter at hand--anarchism in this case--to respond to contextual relevance of particular subject. I dont know much about physics, I am an international studies major, anarchist and artist. It just doesnt make sense to me that I should impose my own judgment on a subject matter unknown to me. I am not saying that should not be general guidelines. Of course. But there must be some good faith and some flexibility, in leaving the specialists in the field room to decide whats notable and whats not. Hope this make sense. Bobmarley13 (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not pass WP:Prof. Evidence that subject passes WP:Author or WP:Politician is lacking. Subject appears as fringe political activist who has yet to break through to mainstream notability. One of the many articles created too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep "widely cited by their peers or successors"; "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work" Pohick2 (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question - I think Pohick (just above) is referring to the guidelines No1 and No3 for notability for creative professionals. Does Grubacic qualify as a creative professional? If so the No.1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" seems possibly enough to establish notability. But the full text of number 3 reads "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." And the qualifying "has been the subject of ... " renders no.3 more problematic in my view. Can we use "creative professional" for an "activist" or an author who is voluntarily doing things rather than doing them just for money - (do we have a creative amateur category?)? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment good point, walking through the idea - co-creating ...well known work ...that has been the subject...of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews = 2 quoted reviews (WRL & ISR - i could dig up more). Creative professionals = Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors... now you could argue it's a fringe well known work, but it seems to me he has a body of work [22] in the field sufficient to be notable. Pohick2 (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 15:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Sure looks like an encyclopedia article to me - well written, well referenced, well sourced article about someone who has published widely in multiple languages, and is notable within his field. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we should keep the article but I do not think that it can be legitimately claimed that it is well referenced/sourced. There are lots of references for sure but there are in my view many problems with them. I have raised some of these on the article's talk page to little avail. For example line three states. A partner with Peoples' Global Action and other Zapatista-influenced direct action movements, Grubačić's primary political investment is in Balkan struggles. and this is referenced to "Civilno društvo?", B-92, 9 June 2004. But this is an article by Grubacic that doesn't seem relevant to this sentence. Line two has four references but they don't really seem to me to support that sentence either. (Msrasnw (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Thanks Msrasnw; I can't read most of the original documents cited, and so I have to rely on what it looks like it is rather than what it is; I would note however that being published on B92 is a sign that he is part of Balkan politics, in the same way that being having a body of work published by Z Magazine is a sign of being sympathetic with its leftist politics (to grossly oversimplify both media organizations). Edward Vielmetti (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My worry with the article is not with the facts as such just that that the citing and referencing appear almost random and the tone seems to be over-exaggerating his importance. Also references 6 and 7 don't seem to refer to the information in their sentences either! (Msrasnw (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

please be WP:BOLD, and restate what the sources say. Pohick2 (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are similar problems with many of the refs but one example is we have the last sentence in the lead "His affinity towards anarchism arose as a result of his experiences as a member of the Belgrade Libertarian Group that derives from the Yugoslav Praxis experiment." this is then cited to http://www.hour.ca/news/news.aspx?iIDArticle=18381 . This is about Grubacic and Global Balkans nothing about Belgrade Libertarian Group and the Yugoslav Praxis experiment. It seems to me the sentence has been taken directly from here http://www.pmpress.org/content/article.php?story=andrejgrubacic (but it could be they took it from wikipedia - but it think we plagiarized it from them.) I am reluctant to edit the page as I have been "warned off" on the talk page by Grubacic's student/research assistant who has been editing the page. (Msrasnw (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment Apologies for my belated participation here. As far as I as creator of the article am concerned, Michael Q. Schmidt and DGG above have the right idea. Although this is a topic area whose norms and culture are notoriously difficult to translate into the neat academic/commercial/entertainment pigeonholes we find useful as Wikipedians to judge notability, I can confirm that Mr. Grubačić is beyond doubt deserving of an article. Alongside his collaborator David Graeber, he is one of the leading figures in the field of contemporary anarchist scholarship, and is just the sort of neglected topic of real-world significance Wikipedia in general needs more coverage of. As much work as there is to be done on this article, I do not think the encyclopaedia would benefit from its removal. Regards,  Skomorokh  21:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which particular categories of WP notability does the article satisfy? It certainly doesn't satisfy WP:Prof. Does it satisfy WP:Author or WP:Politician? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep. Sure, this is an article that needs some work, but the references seem to support the subject's notability. Honestly, if people simply did away with their "mother tongue" and did everything in English, our job would be much easier. In regards to Xxanthippe's remark, is WP:N not enough, subject is discussed in-depth in a couple of reliable sources? Drmies (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which couple are you referring to? Xxanthippe (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep - In my opinion, he meets WP:ANYBIO, quite easily, under point number 2: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Noam Chomsky et al. are enormous figures within current anarchist thought, and he's been involved with him and others, so I'd say that this fellow merits inclusion, at least under ANYBIO. Cocytus [»talk«] 20:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - he belongs in showbiz, really.Red Hurley (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind elaborating? Cocytus [»talk«] 00:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This article is being used as a blog for pushing Balkan political POV and is stuffed with irrelevant and superfluous material. It is an abuse of Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment I fear that this above is more a comment on a particular ideology then on the subject himself. I think it would be good to steer clear from attacks against anarchism. You might wish to disagree with anarchism, or you might wish to consider it a fringe politics. I maintain it is neither. But this is not our topic here. As Skomorokh pointed out, Grubacic is one of the principal voices in contemporary anarchist scholarship/activism, together with David Graeber (and, i would add, Cindy Milstein). Arguing against his entry implies an argument against the relevance of contemporary anarchism. And that would be, to my mind, an abuse of wikipedia. We have a comment by Chomsky. We have a comment by Bond. We have comments by Lynd and Graeber. As for participatory economics, Grubacic is one of the translators of the principal parecon work. Participatory Economics, authored by Michael Albert, he toured the Balkans with Albert many times, and is published widely on this topic in local anarchist zines. He also published a parecon book with Albert in one of the local languages.Bobmarley13 (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think you put it fairly well Bobmarley. I based my opinion on WP:ANYBIO, which states "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." For me, at least, he meets this designation, as the Chomsky stuff, etc. indicates to me that he is part of the enduring historical record in his field, anarchism. Cocytus [»talk«] 15:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks. I also want to be fair to Msrasnw, who is saying that there is more work to be done. I apologize if I sounded dismissive in the past. I agree, I am all for refinement, and I think that this should be an ongoing project. In terms of meeting the notability standards in his field, contemporary anarchism, I think that this has been demonstrated beyond any-- reasonable, fair, non-ideological-- discussion.Bobmarley13 (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI think it might be good if someone else who wanted to keep the article went through it and checked the refs and deleted all the inappropriate refs and things that just seem over-exagerating eg 'Together with Robert Posavec, he is responsible for spreading the idea of participatory economics in the Balkans.' - this is referenced to an interview by Michael Albert of Andrej Grubačić in his own organisation's web blog http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/9970 This interview is just Grubacic talking about how he thinks things should be and that he has spoken to some people about it. There is no independent evidence that people have listened and become convinced by his arguments and the ideas have spread. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Camp[edit]

Jared Camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable former minor league player. Muboshgu (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Mediocre Baseball Player —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.27.35 (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 74.108.27.35 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Never competed at a professional level, and never competed in a high-level amateur championship. Nothing to indicate that the subject meets any standard of notability. Steamroller Assault (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He did play professionally, however he wasn't notable. 34-36, 4.50 ERA in the minors...nothing notable here. Alex (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No significant coverage. Wknight94 ^talk 17:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Played in AAA for several seasons and there does seem to be significant coverage of him in relation to the Santana deal. Spanneraol (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. AAA participation doesn't seem to mesh with WP:ATHLETE, but 'significant coverage' might help for other notability standards. Can you provide sources for this coverage? I'm also inclined to think that 'significant' probably would include information outside the simple mention of his name in a trade agreement. Steamroller Assault (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• AAA is definitely "fully professional"... players earn enough at that level to make a living, thus it passed athlete. I've always maintained that having at least a couple of AAA seasons is enough for notability. A google search produced several sources that discussed Camp in the context of the Santana trade, giving more than just his name. Spanneraol (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Understood, and I can see the sources. But, is this a case of WP:ONEEVENT? Even this source mentions his obscurity. If the article is kept on the basis of these sources, it seems proper to have this trade and its newsworthiness (Camp never makes it to the majors vs Santana's ultimate success) mentioned somewhere in the lead statement. But I'm beginning to think that a redirect to Johan Santana (where Camp is mentioned) may be the way to go. Steamroller Assault (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Even AAA ball doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE in my view. But regardless, I don't see him passing WP:BASEBALL/N. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn after substantial improvement. LibStar (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danish Communistic Youthunion[edit]

Danish Communistic Youthunion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG. found zero coverage in gnews in English (I tried various combinations of communist and youth), and only 5 hits for its Danish name [23]. LibStar (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danish UNIX User Group[edit]

Danish UNIX User Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG, hardly any third party coverage. [24]. there is not even a Danish WP article on this. LibStar (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I made the appropriate cross-linkage to .dk for the history of the DK top level domain, which DKUUG was instrumental in. Can't tell the story of the Danish internet without this group. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a self-published history of the group, in Danish, as a link; can't read Danish well enough to decode more than the acronyms and the general sense of things. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A relevant Danish page is DK_Hostmaster_A/S. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A single google search does not notability determine. Try searching for dkuug.--J Clear (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used google news not google. google is not recommended because of WP:GOOGLEHITS. you haven't actually provided evidence of third party coverage of this. LibStar (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will note I did not mention hit counts. As WP:GOOGLEHITS states, the quality of the search results is important. The Google search would tend to support the two criteria in WP:ORG for Non-Commercial organizations. DKUUG acts as the national representative to international standards such as POSIX. Third party verification can be found in the Google results. --J Clear (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically here is third party confirmation of their POSIX involvement. --J Clear (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is anyone finding anything in the way of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources? I am not. I see two keep !votes but am still not seeing the sources. Help me, please! JBsupreme (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find this professional association to be established. The fact that there are limited sources in English on it should not impair notability, as this is - obviously - a Danish guild. What matters is that the article also does have some coverage from English language sources, as are those referenced in the article itself. Arguably, the fact that there are more sources on Alcide De Gasperi in Italian is not a good reason to delete it. Same goes for this one article.--Grasshopper6 (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Mentioned in local computing press, and even in the mainstream Jyllands-Posten. User groups seldom have that kind of coverage. Pcap ping 14:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eastwood High School (Newton Mearns, Scotland)[edit]

Eastwood High School (Newton Mearns, Scotland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is not notable; GS turned up no third-party sources. Article is non-neutral and unreferenced, and has been predominantly edited by one user who has since abandoned it (no updates in over two months). sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 11:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The greater part of the article was copied verbatim from here. Given how little now remains, it may be best to delete this and start again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. All schools are notable. I removed the line which listed the points earned by the various houses as it seemed unreliable. — Eastmain (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Added by AllyD (talk • contribs • count) - Eastmain (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - not only a high school but sources exist from which the page can be expanded. TerriersFan (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep consensus seems to be in general that secondary/high schools are notable, and article has been recently improved. Rodhullandemu 22:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Added some material in myself - seems to be a reasonably good Scottish school, with some press mentions to boot. --Vivisel (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Should we WP:TROUT any future high school noms? JBsupreme (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've seen loads of high school articles, and I don't think I've ever heard of one being deleted; apart from that, it appears as though there are (additionally) some sources that would make it notable enough to qualify for inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 20:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]